True, I do have more time and it pays better, so I am finally working on my Masters in Elementary & Special education.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u...working-it.gif

No and No.

I was also taught in school that the Civil War was about slavery. That is not the entire story and I don't think that this country would have gone to war to abolish slavery at the time. Lincoln was concerned about keeping the union together more than about slavery. I will need to see if I can find a bit of research for Hobo if I can find the time later. One thing to keep in mind with any research is that the victors determine how history is recorded.

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the union. Lincoln sent federal troops to Charleston, SC. Actually, it was to nearby Fort Sumter. No one knows who fired the first shot, but it was union forces who first took up arms against southern citizens. Southern patriots were there to defend themselves from an invading union army. Had Lincoln not sent federal troops to South Carolina the war might not have happened. My guess is that Lincoln sent in troops in an effort to thwart any rebellion by demonstrating a show of force and if he could stop South Carolina, then he could bring the rest of the Confederate states into line. Rather than quashing the rebellion, it actually had the opposite effect and provided a unifying effect on the southern states. I believe that Lincoln's actions pushed states that were teetering on seceding into leaving the union.

As far as who started the war, I suppose it would depend on which side you were on. Those on the union side would state that it was the south who started the war by seceding from the union. Southern states would contend that it was the federalists who started the war by sending in troops to South Carolina. By the way, it was the first time that federal troops were used against American citizens.

There were many southern sympathizers in the union. It would not have been very difficult for Confederate states to be kept up to date on the goings on in Washington. Southern generals were also experienced in union tactics. Many of the Confederate generals were graduates of West Point and were acquainted with their northern counterparts. In fact, most of them served in the U.S. Army before resigning their commission to join the Confederacy. Keep in mind that Washington DC is partly in Virginia, which is still considered a southern state.

I don't believe that secession was an easy decision for southern states. Nor do I believe that it was an easy decision for generals such as Robert E. Lee and others to resign their commissions in the union army. These people risked everything, property and life, to join the Confederacy. It was a very dark time in our history.

Little known fact.....the United States technically only has 49 states, though, we obviously recognize 50 of them. The state I am referring to is Alabama. Alabama is the only state that didn't rejoin the union after the war was over and no official from the state ever signed the peace treaty making Alabama technically still a Confederate State of America. Just thought I would add that in there.

That is correct, in my studies at GMU I ran into several different versions of the Civil War. In fact, 1 professor was discussing Chancellorsville and I knew the info she was giving was wrong, heck I live 7 miles from it and have toured it many times, I know it's history. She didn't believe what I was saying, I brought in the book that I was citing, she then said the author was ignorant and racist.

That is also correct no matter what History book you read, both blamed the other for what took place at Sumter. Some have said that everything was ok and an uneasy truce was going to happen until the Union started pounding Fort Sumter with artillery. Some say that once the CSA took control of a Union military post by force the war had started, so it was the CSA who started it.

Not true. For starters, DC is DC, neither VA or Maryland claim it. Both gave up pieces of land to establish the city originally. So while you may claim it's in VA so it's a Southern state you can also make the same claim that it's in MD so it's a Northern state. In 1846 it became completely within Maryland territory. The VA land was given back to VA and Alexandria. What many don't know is that Maryland was forced to be a Northern state by Lincoln. He held them hostage to ensure that DC was not surrounded by Southern states. He had many MD politicians arrested and locked away at Fort McHenry if they were a southern supporter. He also had artillery placed on Federal Hill overlooking the City of Baltimore as a show of force.

It was not easy at all, many families were left split because a son fought on one side while another son fought for the other or a son and father fought on different sides.

Maryland was holding elections to decide whether they would secede and join the Confederacy or stay in the union. It was thought that Maryland would vote to secede which would have left Washington DC completely surrounded by the CSA. Lincoln sent in troops to stop the election so that elections could not be held.

Although Washington DC is essentially split between Virginia and Maryland, you are correct in that DC is an entity of it's own.

I had family that fought on both sides. Although the South was destroyed during the war, I don't think that either side really gained much other than keeping the union together. I have mixed feelings as to whether that is a good thing or not. The Confederacy could have survived without northern industry, but I am not as sure that the north could have survived without southern agriculture. After the war, the federal government began to expand and take over more and more control over this country. We lost a lot with this war.

Twilight Flyer said:

Hmm.... some interesting points to debate (without having to do more research...lol!)

"I" made no such assumption. I referred to a civilian uprising that, for purpose of argument, was intent on overthrowing the government.... and thus declaring war on IT! I implied that the U.S. Military would do IT'S JOB... and defend our nation, union and government "against ALL enemies, foreign OR DOMESTIC" as it says in their OATH.

* However.... Lincoln did exactly THAT. :cool:

Again, you are partially correct. They ALSO have standing orders to NOT follow any "illegal" order. But, even under such an order.... what YOU say.... to attack the civilian population (without provocation,) you wouldn't have a military COUP (necessarily.) You'd have a military "rebellion" or "stand-down." [And chaos.]

Usually... and in general.... a military coup is not a "bottom up" rebellion by troops given an order they don't like. It is a "top down" (and very secretive) PLAN to secure the support of the troops under the command of some very HIGHLY PLACED Generals to overthrow a government and especially aimed at it's leader.

An argument for another time perhaps, is whether or not such a LARGE military, with so many different Commanders and "levels of command," could even pull OFF such a "coup" without anyone seeing it coming. :hellno:

Well.... I believe you are misguided in your historical knowledge. Several posters here agree with me that, during the Civil War, MANY families were split either by "lines of demarcation" or by philisophical beliefs. I don't know of any ACTUAL cases of "brother against brother," but I'm SURE there were soldiers that had to wage war on cities, towns or areas that they had "attachments" to! There are MANY stories of opposing soldiers meeting during a "cease fire" and talking about the SAME "home" and memories.

I believe that it was ONLY by "demonizing" the other side as the "ENEMY" (as you say,) that Americans were able to take up arms against OTHER Americans. And at times.... that most certainly DID include family members and friends.

Well, we agree on this. Unfortunately, I fear that there is such a movement afoot that MAY not be so "small scale." But, my contention stands that, if SOME Americans take up arms against our government, for anything OTHER than "self protection" against what YOU call the government declaring WAR on the citizens... or perhaps an "all out ban" on guns in the country (which will NEVER happen,) .... The U.S. Military will do it's JOB and put such a revolt DOWN! It may be ugly. But, it will NOT be much of a contest. :hellno:

Again... I have said nothing about such a "full scale" uprising. I've mentioned that the TEA Party wears guns and talks TALL about "Second Amendment remedies"... and they STIR THE POT!

I have said NOTHING (and neither has Obama) about an armed attempt to disarm American citizens! I disagree with you that an all-out uprising is not a FAR-fetched scenario! I continue to believe that the remedy in America... is the VOTE! And MOST Americans, regardless of how angry they might be, are NOT advocates of militarist insurrection against our government.

Sorry, I don't understand this reference.

Well... this is an interesting delusion. I hadn't THOUGHT about U.N. forces protecting our government against it's OWN military (let alone the people.) But, now that you force me to think about it? I doubt it would happen. The U.N. Forces KNOW that they cannot win in such a situation. I'm quite sure they would "sit it out" and deal with whoever WINS! :lol:

I think you've been playing too many video games, Twilight! And watching TOO much FauxNews! ;)

I realize that YOU are "chilled" by your delusional scenario... but, I don't believe MOST Americans are. In general, you are "fearing" that things have gotten so bad that there MUST or WILL or MIGHT be an American ARMED uprising against some supposedly "tyrannical" government (that WE elected) sometime soon. :hellno: Furthermore.... you suspect it will be over GUN RIGHTS which MIGHT pit the military (or some PART of them) against it's own government (for the protection of their families.)

I contend that the current "militaristic" attitude is more about policy... and interestingly enough.... perhaps about States' Rights! But, the number of people who count themselves as "Tea Partiers," OR those who would support armed insurrection against our government (and not ALL gun owners would DO so...) are like a gnat on the government's AZZ!! :hellno:
They will get "noticed," but they can be squashed anytime we get tired of them. ;)

For the record... I think they have done us a service in waking us up to government excesses! I hope something GOOD comes of it. But, anyone who thinks it will lead to revolution is DELUSIONAL!

And I appreciate that you didn't say, as so many do... that this is ONLY about Obama!

Okay... you've made your point. But....

1) The U.S. Military has DONE so before... against the citizens of the South.

2) NO president would EVER attempt an "all out ban" on GUNS in America!

3) There will never BE an "all out" revolution of the people of America against it's government. The number of people who even THINK about doing such.... LOUD AS THEY MAY BE..... are less than 5% of the population!

4) Under the WORST of secenarios.... I still believe that the MAJORITY of our armed forces will live UP to their oath, and support the government! Obviously, it would be chaos! But, history tells us that "forces" are involved that we don't see on the surface.... such as the "hostage taking" of Baltimore mentioned earlier.

5) In general, I believe this ENTIRE argument to be bogus and not worth the time to discuss! Really! There are more important matters in America today. And the answers lie in a "representative" form of government.... NOT in armed revolution! :ranting:

I agree with Hobo in that I am not sure that the military would side with a rebellion in this country, should one occur. There may be some who would violate their oath and side on the side of right, but I think that for the most part the military would stay pat and follow orders. And by the way, the military was used at Waco under Bill Clinton. Although it violated the Constitution, they followed orders and used tanks and guns against innocents at Waco. Judging from video footage, they are the ones responsible for the fire that killed many innocent civilians who wanted nothing but to be left alone. The authorities supposedly wanted David Koresh, but rather than doing what police would normally do decided to invade their property with tanks, guns and military.

The military was used on the south and it was used in Waco. Using history as a barometer we can assume that since the military was used on civilians in the past that they could and would be used in some future event.

Prior to the Civil War we saw a division among the military. I am not sure that the war would have continued for so many years without some exodus or separation of the military. Generals such as Lee, McClellan and Longstreet were top generals in the union army. They attended the same military academy as their counterparts in the union army. All had promising careers in the union army, but chose to leave and join the Confederacy. It would likely take such an exodus for a real revolution to take place.

On the other hand, a lot of the success of the Confederacy involved guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla wars can go on for decades against a superior military. Just look at how we got bogged down in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

I hope that we NEVER have another revolution in this country. I do believe that unless this administration and congress change direction back to a position of honor and stop their march toward communism or socialism that we could see a real armed conflict in this country. Like during the Civil War, there would be assistance from forces outside this country that would like to see a prolonged conflict within the boundaries of this nation.

I am not sure that most American think that they would ever be in an armed conflict with our government. However, I am talking to more and more people who think that the government could use the military to completely take over this country. And should that happen I can see a time when average Americans would take up arms and fight. The way things are heading they won't need to use the military. We are allowing the government to take over as we sit and watch.

You have a link to back this up. I googled it and cant find any info. I did find that they did join the union on Dec. 14, 1819.

I have been looking for a link on it and will continue to look. As for now, I have not found one, but I have in the past so this boggles my mind. Alabama seceded from the Union on January 11, 1861 in Montgomery, Alabama, listed at the link below.

Southern States Order of Succession

I am going to look a little longer and will repost if/when I find a link to the absence of Alabama. I have found several that stated it DID rejoin the Union, however, every site that states that has a different date for when it rejoined, so I'm not sure how accurate the information is. Also, all of those sites state that there were only 11 states that seceded, when in fact there were 13. The two they leave off continuously are Missouri and Kentucky, which I have found supporting information on that. I guess I actually do have to do research for a change now since I made such a bold claim, however, I have indeed found this information in this past, the only question is how reliable was my source before.

Nope, must be a myth, everything I see says Alabama rejoined the USA in 1868. They would have had to rejoin in order to have US Senators and the likes in Washington DC.

Might better find us a link on THIS info, too. From your own source site, I found this info to back up what I have always heard.... that Kentucky was a neutral state, with Union outposts that were attacked by Confederate armies.

Confederate Heartland Offensive/ Kentucky Campaign

Don't know about Missouri, but I can't imagine all these Civil War sites would somehow "mistakenly" forget about 2 whole states IF they had published a declaration of secession.

Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware were the 5 border slave states that did not secede, they stayed in the Union but called themselves neutral.

You know, on a lighter note, my son does an absolutely spot-on George Bush impersonation, Hobo. He’d have you in stitches.
.
.
.
And I imagine that quite a few of them would label the current government as a DOMESTIC enemy. You seem to forget that in your liberal-leaning centrist beliefs (I am meeting you halfway here), that your view is not shared by everyone. Many people (including a whole helluva lot of military personnel) see the government as damaged, perhaps beyond repair. And that number is growing

Yes, yes, we know. The Civil War was a long time ago and as far as I know, Lincoln isn’t around giving Bam Bam any advice.
.
.
.
As to what exactly would happen, it’s pure speculation on either side. I say they won’t fire on American citizens and maybe you do, too. And I totally agree that it would be pure chaos.

What makes you think that the generals wouldn’t be spearheading a very public attempt at removing a criminal? Far-fetched yes (there’s a book in it somewhere), but I mention it to make the point that those HIGHLY placed generals would probably be thinking the same thing those assault rifle toting grunts are thinking, in the event that the president ordered a full-scale attack on the citizens of this country.
.
.
.
And of course, there is the Christmas story back in World War I where Allied and German troops had a cease-fire, climbed out of their trenches, and shared Christmas together, before going back to fighting and killing each other the next day.

Point I was making is that the north vs. the south was nearly the equivalent of two separate countries – really was, considering the southern states had seceded and had they been victorious in the war, would have likely created a new nation. In other words, binding ties aside, it would have been a whole lot easier for the two sides to fight each other than the direction we are going today.

Again, if it came to an all-out armed conflict between our government and her citizens TODAY, you are going to find that by and large, American troops are not going to go to war against their friends and families.
.
.
.
I’ll stop you there on that point. I’m not talking about an all out gun-ban. That would just be a small part of the whole that pushed the citizens of this country over the edge. There’s a lot of ingredients in that boiling pot right now.

This is what I wanted to touch on. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve got a whole boatload of troops out there fighting against a bunch of terrorists that really don’t care much about WHO they kill, as long as they can kill a few American soldiers at the same time. If 50 or 60 innocents people die at the same time, so be it. Works for them. They are fighting with outdated weapons, against a superior fighting force, they live like cockroaches, and most of them are trucked in from neighboring countries to take up the fight.

Now, do you honestly think that 70 million well-armed and well-stocked American citizens, fighting on their own property for their own family, friends, and freedoms, would not be much of a contest?

Talk about delusional. :roll:
.
.
.
Oh give it a break. Stirring the pot is done on both sides and the liberals and supporters of the criminals in charge are not lily-white.

An armed attempt to disarm American citizens would result in that full scale war. I don’t think your boy in the White House is an idiot – I think everything he does is coldly calculated to give him exactly what he’s looking for. And I think that more and more people are waking up to that fact. So unlike you, I do not believe it is a far-fetched scenario. We already know that the VOTE isn’t going to fix things – it’s the VOTE that got us into the mess we are currently in. Like you, I HOPE the vote could get us started digging out of it and I have high hopes that a lot of slimeballs are going to be given their walking papers in November. But I don’t know if it’s going to fix things – there is such a thing as going over the edge or past the point of no return and I think we have finally moved beyond that point.

You don’t remember the movie “Stripes”? Francis was the guy that kept telling everyone he would kill them. “If you touch my stuff…I’ll kill ya! If you touch me…I’ll kill ya!” That’s where the saying “Lighten up, Francis” came from. :)
.
.
.
One man’s delusion is another man’s truth.

Would you be your life on that? I wouldn’t.

Again, I don’t share your opinion. I think about through recent history at the different presidents that we had and even those that I did not like, I could never see them getting the population stirred up like the current POTUS. I cannot picture them turning to the UN for help stomping down on the citizens of this country, either. But I can see the current POTUS doing that and doing so quite easily. Perhaps that’s what stirs me up so much against this guy – he is so blatantly anti-American that it’s downright scary. And just because YOU cannot see that, doesn’t mean that he isn’t. It just means that you haven’t yet opened your eyes.

I play few video games and watch ZERO news. I prefer to get my news in readable form from various sources from BOTH sides of the political fence and I do just that. It allows me to see things more clearly and make better decisions based on what I am seeing.
.
.
.
Again, you might be surprised at what MOST Americans believe today and even more so when you realize that you are in a shrinking minority.

In the first place, we are already under a tyrannical government. It’s just in feel-good mode right now. And yes, I feel that things have gotten so bad that something has to give.

I don’t know where you are getting the idea that I think this is all over gun rights?!? If the government decided to come after the firearms of this nation’s citizens, it would erupt into nationwide violence. I don’t believe there is any doubt about that. But gun control being the catalyst here? Have you been paying attention for the past 18 months? The laundry list of what the current disaster-in-chief has destroyed in this country is pages and page long and growing and people are fed up. At this point, it’s no longer a matter of IF, but a matter of WHEN. If you don’t share that belief, that’s fine – it’s your right because at this moment, you have the freedom to feel that way. But mark my words, when the time comes that MY rights to think and do as I please are curtailed, then so will yours…unless, of course, you’re just planning on being a Bam Bam Yes Man. Then you’ll probably get a free pass.

Then you’re not paying attention.

That being said, I double-dog dare you to come try and squash me. Now imagine 70 million plus saying the same thing.
.
.
.
Again, you aren’t paying attention, then. And I never said it WILL lead to revolution. I have said that it's quite possible, even likely. Whether it gets to that point is going to hinge greatly on what happens in the next 5 months.

It’s about government in general. I have never been big on government…as long as I live my life the right way and pay my taxes (to a reasonable extent), then government needs to leave me the FLOCK alone. However, the thing that government has become today is far from what our founding fathers envisioned for this country. Now, I’m pizzed off, a sentiment being repeated by tens of millions of American citizens every day. It’s not just a disenfranchised populace anymore. It’s real life people feeling they have been pushed to the limit and are ready to fight back.
.
.
.
I always do. :p

Relevant to then; irrelevant to today.

One would hope not. But my arguments have not been based on that, either. That’s only a small piece of the Jenga stack…maybe the piece that brings the tower down, but a single piece nevertheless.

And why is that? Because you don’t feel that way? I’ll say it again…you haven’t been paying attention. Look, just because it hasn’t happened before, doesn’t mean it won’t ever happen. That’s a fool’s argument. There are reasons that the Tea Party has risen so quickly and to such strength – it’s because people have had enough and are done being pushed around by big government. You should zip the lip for a while and start listening to what those on the other side of the fence are saying. Find out WHY they are so mad and to WHAT extent they will act to change things. You might be surprised (and chilled) at what you might discover.

I disagree completely. I don’t see the MAJORITY of our armed forces obeying a president that orders them to exterminate their family and friends. Over the past 6 months, I’ve had this discussion with a number of military people, including a couple that support Bam Bam. Their feelings on the matter did not surprise me at all – they mirror my own. And it’s a feeling that appears to be widely shared by military personnel.

Well, if we had a representative form of government, then we could get to work on fixing things, right? But we do NOT have a representative government and haven’t had one for over 18 months. I’ve been saying this for a number of years…when the pendulum swings too far to one side, half of America is no longer heard. And if things continue on their current course, we’ll see that pendulum swing the other way in November and then completely knock the scales over in 2012. Where will YOU be then? Same place I am today.

The only question remaining is, who is going to fire the first shot?

Hobo must be rubbing off on you TF to make a long azz post like that.:lol:

What are you talking about, Mackman? Twilight has ALWAYS been a "closet" Windbag! He just felt shackled by I.B. :lol::lol:

But, I have to admit that I now understand some of the complaints from those who MIGHT want to respond to one of MY posts... but, just don't have the TIME! :eek2::lol2:

I have recently read some about the "border states," but didn't know exactly which ones they were. Having done some historical research recently on Kentucky, I was aware that they at least "strove" for neutrality. Thanks for the info, Mr. Ford.

You gotta "feel" for these states who were, essentially, caught in the middle.

Dubya told the World that they either had to be WITH us... or AGAINST us. (Had to squeeze that in.) But, it's interesting that during the Civil War, there were states who clearly stated they would NOT choose a side! Of course, their lands were ravaged anyways! (to some extent.) :hellno:

Mackman said:I do that for Hobo and to see how many times Windy has to go take a potty break. :)

And Hobo:The only shackles with IB was having to take a neutral stance in any dork-swinging manly men fights. Now I can pull up a chair and pop some popcorn. ;)

You know you love it...anyone can give a 5 second sound bite. A long thoughtful posts gives you something to think about - someone that can answer your posts with like-minded posts from the other side of the aisle makes you work; makes you think before you reply.

I many not agree with you on many things, but I read your posts, even the long ones. Some of the time, I may think you've gone off the deep end. But I still read what you have to say.

I agree, and what I see happening, is this Executive Branch does not care about the Congressional elections this fall. Obama knows he already has unlimited power. He could care less who is keeping/loosing their seat. I'm also seeing the Judicial Branch in the cross hairs, and will soon be made as useless as Congress. (IMO for all you hobos)

The same thing happened during WW1 and 2. Several European countries declared neutrality only to become occupied by Germany. A few then decided to take up arms and fight back instead of being an occupied neutral but some stayed neutral. Heck, we were neutral in WW2 until Japan attacked us. We told all our European friends we were going to sit that one out but once Japan attacked us we did what other neutral's had done in the past, took up arms and fought back.

I don't think Obama even "thinks" he has unlimited power. The Senate GOP's have managed to fillibuster almost everything... by just saying "NO."

I DO believe that he is committed to advancing a "MORE" liberal agenda while he "sometimes" has the votes. You seem to think this has been EASY for him so far. It has NOT. And the results are CERTAINLY more "centrist."

Whether or not he cares about losing Democratic seats should be a GOOD sign. He, for once, is NOT playing Washington politics with his agenda. He wants people to vote for what THEY feel is right... not what will get them re-elected.

The Judicial Branch? Are you kidding me? So far, he has ONLY had the opportunity to replace OTHER LIBERAL justices on a court weighted HEAVILY on the Conservative side (thanks, in part, to some appointments by DUBYA.) But... IF he gets the chance to sway the court "slightly" more towards the liberal side... HOW does that make it any MORE "useless" than the conservative court and conservative congress have been for MOST of the last decade? :roll:

So... you think the Congress is useless. You think the Supreme Court will somehow soon become useless. You OBVIOUSLY think the Executive branch is useless. What are you to do? You know?... you're not that far from Canada! Enjoy your NEW "freedoms" and don't let the door hit you in the AZZ on your way OUT! :lol2:

THIS would not be the FIRST time that America has had a "trifecta" of government branches... although it has been a RARITY. And guess what.... we SURVIVED it!

I have NEVER, in my lifetime, heard so many "chicken littles" screaming about the SKY falling! And I've been around for quite a few changes in government! :roll:

The only REAL difference I see in the government TODAY, is the COLOR of the man in the White House! His "policies" are not that much more (if any) LIBERAL than Clinton's or Carter's or even REAGAN's!! No MORE so than Johnson's, Kennedy's or even Eisenhower's! So WHAT makes all of this a CRISIS that justifies a revolution??

Name me ONE freedom you have lost since Obama took office. Name me ONE tax that you have had levied on you since then. TELL me about how he has "cut and run" from A-Stan! And don't GIVE me this B.S. about "socialism" or "takeovers." EVERY company we've "bailed out" because of Dubya's mistakes STILL has private ownership... and STILL are screwing the average American! But.... by saving them, (which was originally started by Dubya) Obama has SAVED millions of jobs and averted a full fledged DEPRESSION!

The Economists disagree with you. The stock market disagrees with you. MANY republicans disagree with you. Our ALLIES disagree with you. The ONLY people that agree with you are our ENEMIES... and the TEA BAGGER "NUTS!" :roll:

Good luck with THAT! :hellno:

But, hey... this is just MHO.... for you rightwing nutjobs! :roll:

;):lol:

It's been awhile since I made a political opinion. I almost forgot... I'm suppose to ask you for my opinion first. :roll:

I guess I need to spell it out for you Hobo. I use to be your ONLY advocate here with the moderator staff. I've since learned to really dislike you and consider you a complete asshat.

I no longer give a rats butt what you think...and have no need for your input on any of my opinions.....because I think of you as a condescending hateful prique.

You sure have become a Class A Jackass. GFY http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...d10/finger.gif

I'm not denying that either of them may or may not have been a neutral state.....I said they seceded, which they did. I do not trust Wikipedia in general due to the nature of the website, but here is a quick link to what I am referring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession

The dates of their secessions are as follows.... Kentucky - November 20, 1861 and Missouri - October 31,1861

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/ordinance_secession.html

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm#Missouri

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm#Kentucky

They may not have remained Confederate states, and as history lessons tell us, there were Union outposts in these "neutral" states, however, Kentucky and Missouri DID secede.

By the way, I am resuming my search for the information that I found nearly ten years ago on the internet about Alabama not rejoining the Union. I have not found anything stating that they did in fact sign anything agreeing to rejoin, but rather were adopted in after ratifying the states constitution twice. The first time it was rejected still, insinuating that they were attempting to rejoin, and were obviously readmitted. I am not sure how reliable the information that I had found in the past about it not rejoining, but I know I found multiple sites in which that was stated. Having been over ten years ago, my memory fails me as to whether any of the publishers were reputable or not, so I am resuming my search for a little while in order to get some closure on this.

Razor, your sorta right but not entirely. Kentucky never officially seceded from the Union. A rogue Kentucky state was setup and recognized by the CSA but it never actually controlled the entire state. Officially, Kentucky was always Union.

Basically, a few setup a shadow govt. hoping the CSA would win the war in which they would then overthrow the current Kentucky govt and already have an existing govt. in place. It never worked out for them but in reality, they had split Kentucky in two. Officially in all records, Kentucky was always Union/neutral the real govt. never voted to secede.

Missouri was a funny deal. Both sides claim them and always have. The Governor tried to secede but his govt. refused, he had zero support of joining the CSA but at the same time the govt. refused to join the Union cause. They did not like how the Union was trying to coerce southern states. Eventually confusion and all heck broke loose in Missouri and nobody is sure what really happened. History books show Missouri never left the Union. It appears another shadow govt. like in Kentucky was setup after some military fighting took place in the state. Historians to this day still aren't sure if it was a shadow govt or a real working govt. that was setup. There is no official record of the secession ordinance and until there is, it's all myth and urban legend.

Finally something WE both can agree on! ;)

This is where I take issue:
If that was the only change he referring to during his campaign, I just wish he would have said that. I heard his speeches and his promises, he should have just said, politics or "policies" as usual.

The healthcare bill will tax Americans that President Obama promised he would NOT tax.
Also, this is the last year of the Bush tax cuts that helped those that are married not be penalized by the tax code, he has not extended the tax cuts, so once again there will be taxed levied against many that in this economic climate frankly can't handle anymore decline in their wages.

I named two, happy?:)

Thank you!! Ya beat me to it!

Depending on how you look at it, none of the states ever seceded anyway. The US government didn't recognize the secessions as legal anyway, making them null and void. So since they didn't view them as seceded, they knowingly attacked their own civilian population. Then again, at the same time, the South viewed them not allowing the South to be seceded as illegal and they were their own country so it wasn't a civil war but a war between two countries. Its all semantics really, and that's an argument no one can win, especially when anyone and everyone involved is and has been dead for a century.

I am tired of looking for this information that I professed as "a little known fact," so I will renege what I claimed since apparently the information I found in the past was obviously not from a reliable source, since all other information I am and have found in the last couple of days points to Alabama attempting twice to rejoin the Union before being accepted. The dates have differed on every site that I have found, so I am still not sure how accurate those claims are. Even though I found multiple sites in the past stating what I claimed, it seems to me from my memory that they probably weren't very reputable and if nothing else less reputable than the sources (no matter how different the dates are) I have found in the last two days claiming the other side.

It's ok Razor, you'll find a lot of that out there. Some history books have wrong info in them so you have a great chance of finding wrong info on the internet.

And that is why you will find wrong info all over the place about the Civil War, record keeping wasn't the greatest back then.

Some say that where I live, nothing happened here during the American Revolution. If that were true then I would not have found a sheathed bayonet knife from the Royal Navy dated 1764. It's possible that the trenches around the house were what we thought from the Civil War might actually be from the American Revolution. I'm a half mile from Wilderness Battlefield which is Civil War but the same path was used during the American Revolution when British soldiers were advancing on both Monticello and Montpelier.

The other southern states who "seceded," their govt's voted to leave the Union so they technically left in their own minds even if the Union didn't see it that way. The 2 in question held a vote and both chose to not join the CSA and at the time, not join the Union cause either.


Obama didn't call it a tax with healthcare, it was the only way it could pass in Congress, he made sure to tell us all the mandate was not a tax. Oops, guess it was a tax after all once it was asked to be clarified recently by a court. Oh wait, those evil Repubs and Fox News must be putting words in the Great One's mouth again. Ohhhhhhhh, you mean they have video evidence of him saying it was not a tax and now saying it is a tax a few months later? Must be fake, he'd never flip flop like John Kerry or be caught in a lie.

Not defending him by any means (I voted for and have been a supporter of McCain for as long as I can remember) but isn't that ALL politicians?

No I know that razor, what I meant was, he's supposedly never told us a lie or changed his position. Everytime someone calls him on it he skates around answering them or changes the subject or pulls a "it's my ball so I'm taking my ball and going home." Yes they all do it but he takes the cake with his reactions whenever he gets busted by the media over it so it's always funny to point out when he gets caught. His followers(I don't mean anyone here) always want to deny he got caught which is also funny. They try to spin the tar out of it.

You took my statement out of context. But, I will be happy to discuss what I MEANT, perhaps this weekend.

Please explain where you think the "TAX" will come in, so I can address this. (And I REALLY hope you mention the tanning bed tax! I'm loaded for THAT one.) :lol:

Personally, I NEVER agreed with any tax cuts for marrieds that are not extended to singles. [14th Amendment] But, again.... I'll discuss this over the weekend.

If I'm not mistaken..... He is NOT doing away with the exceptions for MIDDLE CLASS marrieds.... just like he is not repealing the Bush Tax Cuts on Income for the Middle Class.

I'm happy enough that you are participating. Like I said.... I'll have a response, or at least a discussion, but TONIGHT I've been arguing with RoadRunner over JUST WHO owns this friggin computer!! :mad:

I'm having ALL KINDS of trouble accessing these links. Did you TYPE them in.... or cut and paste them? The hash marks have a space between them (I think) and some are missing the WWW part.

It COULD just be my Internet Explorer version or something. But, it has taken me down a road of "installations" of toolbars that I NEVER wanted to do! :lol::pissedoff:

Anyone ELSE having a problem with these links?

Little extra work with my keyboard but I got them to come up.:thumbsup:

Hobo, that healthcare "tax" is the federal mandate that if you don't have healthcare they penalize you. They had to clarify it before a court, was it a tax or not. So the penalty is a tax for not having it is what they told the court and the country. The Repubs kept saying it was a tax and that the Dems were simply not calling it a tax. When they had to clarify it, guess what, the Repubs were correct, it was a tax. In other news, Obama dropped another 15 points in the public's eye to a 36% confidence rating. He lost 15 points in 1 month in the Gallup poll. Still ahead of Bush's 26% in his final year but Obama is gaining ground quickly. Congress as a whole was even worse, 11% rating. Obama's overall approval rating is down to 46%.

I'm thinking that even Palin would be able to win over Obama in the next election... At least, then, gun rights would be preserved.:thumbsup:

And, no. I do not own a gun.

These should work for most users. No guarantees for Hobo of course. ;)




Tip: when using the link feature in the message creator make sure that you delete the http:// that is already there before you paste your link. Otherwise it is in there twice and the link doesn't work. BTW, most browsers do not need the 'http' it is added by default, you only need the 'www...'.

I cut and pasted them, but I was probably pretty tired when I did it, so it is entirely possible that I did some modifications to the links before/after I cut and pasted them.

I appreciate it....I just figured that a little extra effort makes the information that much more valuable right?

No problem.